But at the same time, if it were as obvious as just quoting the constituion, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The SC decides cases that are difficult, not cases that are easy.
Again, I believe this is the right decision, but it was no layup.
Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion? This is an intrusion into an individuals privacy worse than anything the framers could have imagined justified only a by a right to search that exists to discover contraband THINGS not contraband thoughts.
Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago.
> insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices
> to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life
> without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion?
You seem to think that I support a side I don't. Cases like this don't survive motions for summary judgement if the one side is completely implausible. This case either survived a motion for summary judgement, or the "obvious" side didn't make such a motion.
So if you think it is completely obvious, you should take it up with either the judge that denied the motion, or the lawyer who neglected to bring it.
> Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago.
Any law that forbid it was unjust, and it should have been fixed long, long before Obergefell. But just because a law is unjust, doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional on its face, (cf, civil asset forfeiture--manifestly unjust and currently legal in many circumstances) This is a mistake many court-watchers make.
It is a very safe bet that a 1950's court would have gone the other way on Obergefell, so on a plain language standard kind of fails. At some point, society gained a better understanding of what justice is and is not--and that is a great thing. But if the plain language didn't change, then the appeal to plain language isn't what gets us there. Rather, our understanding of justice did.
It's not at all obvious. For example: it's "obvious" that the constitution applies to the United States. Before you pass through the border, you are in a place that is NOT the United States. It's definitely not obvious that the constitution applies to places outside the US.
It's reasonable to search for harmful or illegal materials entering the country. You have a compelling interest in the safety of the citizens and this is likely your one chance to reasonably interdict them before they can cause harm to the citizenry.
No such special circumstance exist for information. Information flows freely and securely over most of the world and interdicting it at the border is laughable. Once you leave behind existing powers and arguments for same you are left making an argument for new powers undreamt of by the founders.
You can argue for example that being able to access all the private words and documents of travelers allows you to make better decisions as far as whom and what ought to be interdicted or examined. This might even be a compelling argument for you. It is however not a continuation of centuries of practice but rather entirely new power that ought to be enumerated in new laws if it is to be granted.
If we insist that we react to the changing landscape provided by technology solely by interpreting what 18th century individuals wrote we ought to interpret very conservatively insofar as grants of government power. If such new powers are needed let the peoples representatives write the required laws.
This is what the Yahoo attorneys were told in one of the few partially declassified FISA court hearings by the judge when they tried to push back on a sweeping warrant, which I believe involved full emails/information for not only a group of individuals but every person they talked to 2 hops, which quickly turns into thousands of people and companies.